<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Avri,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Your point on administrative functions is absolutely consistent with my understanding. We have discussed having some form of "services agreement" whereby ICANN would provide various "back-office" and enterprise-wide services (such as HR, etc.) to PTI. It has not been the view of the CWG that PTI needs to be a completely self-sufficient, hermetically sealed entity. That would be economic folly. You don't need to have a full-time HR person (much less, an HR staff) for 12 or so people, for example.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi<br>
<br>
I think of the ICANN IANA function staff as becoming PTI staff, but I<br>
do not think you need to move all of the administrative functions that<br>
support that staff as they can be 'outsourced' (or rather remain) with<br>
ICANN for as long as PTI is an affiliate. Some, on the other hand may<br>
be internalized to PTI at some future point.<br>
<br>
But yes, I thought we were talking about transferring the assets that<br>
pertain to the IFO to the PTI.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11-Jun-15 22:15, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> Apart from <a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">iana.org</a> <<a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://iana.org</a>>, there is IANA trademark itself<br>
<span class="">> and based on your response I presume you support a transfer of that as<br>
> well. So we may also simply refer to the new IANA staff as PTI staff<br>
> and not ICANN staff since they are part of the transfer and since we<br>
> (the CWG) want a wholely standalone/separated IFO. That would also<br>
> mean more department will need to spring up within PTI, like the HR<br>
> for instance.<br>
><br>
> I hope we are thinking about all these complications, or maybe it's<br>
> not as complicated as i think. Perhaps we can just hope that the other<br>
> 2 communities will accept and move on.<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
> sent from Google nexus 4<br>
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
><br>
> On 11 Jun 2015 23:26, "Avri Doria" <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a><br>
</span><div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> I tend to look at it much more simply.<br>
><br>
> ICANN has the domain name now.<br>
> it is one of the IANA assets.<br>
><br>
> The Name and Numbers communities have chosen to remain ICANN's<br>
> customers.<br>
> There is no reason to transfer ICANN/IANA assets to one of ICANN's<br>
> customers.<br>
><br>
> If ICANN is transferring all of the IANA assets to PTI, then the<br>
> domain<br>
> name registrations should go with it.<br>
><br>
> avri<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 11-Jun-15 12:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > I see that neither Alan nor Greg has addressed the separability<br>
> issue.<br>
> > I will take that as a concession that it cannot be answered.<br>
> There is,<br>
> > as I pointed out twice, a contradiction between ICANN owning the<br>
> marks<br>
> > and the ability to move the IFO. That is true whether or not ICANN<br>
> > offers a royalty-free license – that still puts ICANN in control of<br>
> > its use rather than the technical community and ICANN/PTI is an IFO.<br>
> > And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the CRISP<br>
> > team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an<br>
> IFO and<br>
> > they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > With respect to that point, John Poole, I am afraid your review<br>
> of the<br>
> > trademark record is not relevant to this controversy. Just to<br>
> fill in<br>
> > your historical record a bit more, USC Information Sciences<br>
> Institute<br>
> > was the institutional home of Jon Postel, who was working on<br>
> behalf of<br>
> > the IETF and was one of the developers of both the IP protocol<br>
> and the<br>
> > numbers and names registry. So if you want to make that history<br>
> > relevant, you would have to note that his position was far closer to<br>
> > that of the current IETF than to ICANN. Indeed, the All the<br>
> trademark<br>
> > records reveals is something that we already know and which has no<br>
> > bearing on what we are doing now: which is, that when ICANN was<br>
> > created, it was assumed that Postel would move to become part of it,<br>
> > and that ICANN would “be” the IANA. But as I have explained<br>
> elsewhere,<br>
> > that did not happen; ICANN became the DNS policy making entity<br>
> and the<br>
> > IANA was a small appendage to it. We are in a very different<br>
> situation<br>
> > now and the TM arrangements need to adjust.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I am amused by the fact that Greg says we can avoid this issue<br>
> because<br>
> > our remit does not extend to the other operational communities – but<br>
> > then insists on doing something that directly contradicts the<br>
> > proposals of the other operational communities.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is<br>
> > certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of the<br>
> > arguments, it is not consistency with the general principles we<br>
> agreed<br>
> > on.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > *From:*<a href="mailto:john@expri.com">john@expri.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:john@expri.com">john@expri.com</a>><br>
</div></div>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:john@expri.com">john@expri.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:john@expri.com">john@expri.com</a>>] *On Behalf Of<br>
<span class="">> *John Poole<br>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:17 AM<br>
</span>> > *To:* <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
<div><div class="h5">> > *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Andrew Sullivan; Milton L Mueller<br>
> > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton:<br>
> ><br>
> > Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to<br>
> resolve this<br>
> > issue (IANA marks):<br>
> ><br>
> > USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern<br>
> ><br>
> California)—<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-25-en" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-25-en</a><br>
> > which states in 2.1:<br>
> ><br>
> > 2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and<br>
> > transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and<br>
> > interest in and to the following:<br>
> ><br>
> > (a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending<br>
> > registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law<br>
> > service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the<br>
> "IANA"<br>
> > common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the IANA<br>
> > logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the<br>
> "Service<br>
> > Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and<br>
> ><br>
> > (b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce,<br>
> > distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and<br>
> otherwise<br>
> > use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant to<br>
> > the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright<br>
> > Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and<br>
> > Copyright Assignment")."<br>
> ><br>
> > The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition<br>
> Agreement is<br>
> > specifically referred to and approved by the United States<br>
> Government<br>
> > in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000)<br>
> > <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf</a><br>
> ><br>
> > Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity<br>
> holding or<br>
> > claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks<br>
> prior to<br>
> > the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says<br>
> > that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has<br>
> employed<br>
> > a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..."<br>
> ><br>
> > The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned Numbers<br>
> > Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060:<br>
> ><br>
> > RFC 1060 --March 1990:<br>
> ><br>
> > “… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned<br>
> > Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or<br>
> > application that will require the use of a link, socket, port,<br>
> > protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number<br>
> assignment.<br>
> ><br>
> > Joyce K. Reynolds<br>
> > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority<br>
> > USC - Information Sciences Institute<br>
> > 4676 Admiralty Way<br>
> > Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …”<br>
> ><br>
> > US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date of<br>
> > March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern<br>
> > California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park,<br>
> ADM 352<br>
> > Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC<br>
> > (“entire interest”) to ICANN<br>
> ><br>
> <a href="http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=75261386" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=75261386</a><br>
> ><br>
> > ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA<br>
> > marks in 2001 and 2007.<br>
> ><br>
</div></div>> > Domain name <a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">iana.org</a> <<a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://iana.org</a>> <<a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://iana.org</a>> has a<br>
<span class="">> "created date" of<br>
> > 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN.<br>
> ><br>
> > The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these<br>
> > property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license<br>
> their<br>
> > use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party.<br>
> ><br>
> > Best regards,<br>
> > John Poole<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a><br>
<div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Greg, not quite.<br>
> ><br>
> > You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also<br>
> > technical issues. Currently <a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">iana.org</a> <<a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://iana.org</a>><br>
> <<a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://iana.org</a>> has uses<br>
> > within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia<br>
> > all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at<br>
> > some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to use<br>
> > the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name<br>
> to be<br>
> > transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the<br>
> groups<br>
> > has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of the<br>
> > then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be<br>
> problematic.<br>
> ><br>
> > But the problems will be there regardless of where the<br>
> <a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">iana.org</a> <<a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://iana.org</a>><br>
> > <<a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://iana.org</a>> name resolves to if there is a split. The best<br>
> > we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances.<br>
> ><br>
> > And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first<br>
> > discussed. Although no one wants to stop using <a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">iana.org</a><br>
> <<a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://iana.org</a>><br>
> > <<a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://iana.org</a>>, and it would probably more disruptive for the<br>
> > IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built into<br>
> > code), we would survive.<br>
> ><br>
> > Alan<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Alan,<br>
> ><br>
> > You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the<br>
> > agreements between ICANN and the other two communities<br>
> should<br>
> > require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license<br>
> to use<br>
> > the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get<br>
> fancy,<br>
> > there can be a contingent license that automatically springs<br>
> > into place when the customer separates.<br>
> ><br>
> > I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement.<br>
> ><br>
> > Greg<br>
> ><br>
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a><br>
</div></div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a><br>
<div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>> ><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > I refrained from weighing in when this was first<br>
> discussed and<br>
> > in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever the<br>
> > solution, there must be some principle adhered to:<br>
> ><br>
> > 1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to<br>
> > defend it if necessary.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all<br>
> three<br>
> > users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the<br>
> > users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw<br>
> from the<br>
> > IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all<br>
> > necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM<br>
> with<br>
> > no user disruption.<br>
> ><br>
> > In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for<br>
> > the immediate future, because it will, either directly or<br>
> > through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and<br>
> > those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody<br>
> > principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal<br>
> resources to<br>
> > defend the TM if necessary.<br>
> ><br>
> > But there are certainly other solutions that could also<br>
> > satisfy both principles...<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
</div></div>> > <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
<span class="">> > <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> ---<br>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
> <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
</span>> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>